Louisiana v. Callais, now being reargued before the Supreme Court, poses one of the most consequential voting rights challenges in recent years. At issue is whether Louisiana’s decision to create a second majority‑Black congressional district (via Senate Bill 8) violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by treating race as a predominant factor in drawing district lines. The case arrives after years of litigation over whether the state’s map diluted Black voting strength under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
The background is complex. Initially, Louisiana’s post‑2020 redistricting plan created only one majority‑Black district, which Black voters and civil rights groups challenged as an unlawful dilution of their votes. Courts ruled in their favor, ordering a new map to create a second Black‑majority district. The state’s legislature responded with SB 8, a map that linked distant communities to form a second majority‑Black district.
However, SB 8 itself was challenged by non‑Black voters who claimed it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander—i.e., that race predominated over traditional districting rules without satisfying strict scrutiny. A three‑judge panel agreed, striking down the map; federal courts stayed that order temporarily so SB 8 could be used in the 2024 elections.
The Supreme Court’s decision could reshape redistricting nationwide. If the Court limits or rejects race‑based remedies under Section 2, it could weaken protections for minority voters and put numerous Democratic‑leaning districts at risk. Conservative justices have already expressed skepticism about longstanding doctrinal frameworks requiring race-conscious districts in some contexts.
The reargument scheduled for October 15, 2025, concentrates on whether the intentional creation of a second majority‑minority district is constitutionally permissible. The Court has asked the parties to address directly the tension between remedying vote dilution (under the VRA) and Equal Protection constraints.
